New Zealand newspaper publishes cartoons of Mohammad
Interesting, the Dominion Post, New Zealands second largest daily newspaper has decided to post the cartoon in full. I will be interested to see at this stage what the backlash will be.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3561502a12,00.html
This was the accompanying editorial that went with the republication of the cartoon:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3562143a1861,00.html
Quote:
The precious right of freedom of speech
04 February 2006
Modern society rests on the contest of ideas, the ability to question perceived wisdom and to challenge authority, The Dominion Post writes in an editorial. Without that contest, and the right to free speech that makes it possible, societies stultify and become entrenched in their beliefs. That freedom to question and to challenge must include the right to be offensive, to affront people's most heartfelt beliefs, even to disparage that which they hold sacred. Otherwise it is an empty freedom.
Our decision to publish the 12 cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten (Jutland Post) at the centre of the escalating row between the Muslim world and the nations of the West is not one that the newspaper has taken lightly. However, in the clash of values at the centre of the dispute not to publish because of fear of disturbing the sensibilities of Muslims would be to give way in the face of bullying threats. That is what Muslims are seeking to have the Western democracies do with their threats of bombs and trade boycotts. There is no doubt that Muslims find the portrayal of the Prophet offensive. The Koran is clear that the slander and mockery of Islam and prayer crosses a sacred boundary, and warns that those who cross that boundary will be hurled into "crushing disaster". Mufti Abdul Barkatullah, a member of the British Muslim Council, calls it a no-go area at any cost, adding "the Prophet is held above everything in the universe, over one's own person, family, parents, the whole world. It is less offensive to condemn and vilify God". That is certainly true – for Muslims.
However Denmark, and the other countries where the cartoons have been reproduced, including in Britain by the BBC and in newspapers in France, Switzerland, Spain, Italy and Germany, are not Muslim countries. They are democratic, secular countries which are not ruled by religious dogma, whether it be Muslim or Christian. They have the same values as New Zealand, which includes the right to free speech in its Bill of Rights. There is an acceptance that people can write and say what they wish – except in tightly defined circumstances – even if others are offended by it, and that being shocked can be part of the price for being informed. The Muslim case is not helped by the hypocrisy when it comes to respecting the religious values of others. No doubt many fundamentalist Christian Americans find it deeply offensive for their country to be constantly labelled the Great Satan. And, as the German newspaper Die Welt pointed out when it published one of the cartoons, "when Syrian television showed drama documentaries in prime time depicting rabbis as cannibals, the imams were quiet". There have been earlier cultural confrontations between the West and a resurgent Islam, beginning with the death sentence pronounced in 1989 on author Salman Rushdie for The Satanic Verses, and including the murder in 2004 of Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh after he made a film dealing with violence against Islamic women. They are confrontations the West cannot afford to lose. The right to freedom of speech is a precious one that has to be defended. If there is a backlash in the form of boycotts then that could have a effect of New Zealands current buoyant economy as trade with the middle East in the form of providing halal meat and other agricultural goods is not insignificant.
If there is a backlash in the form of boycotts then that could have a effect of New Zealands current buoyant economy as trade with the Middle East in the form of providing halal meat and other agricultural goods is not insignificant.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3561502a12,00.html
This was the accompanying editorial that went with the republication of the cartoon:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3562143a1861,00.html
Quote:
The precious right of freedom of speech
04 February 2006
Modern society rests on the contest of ideas, the ability to question perceived wisdom and to challenge authority, The Dominion Post writes in an editorial. Without that contest, and the right to free speech that makes it possible, societies stultify and become entrenched in their beliefs. That freedom to question and to challenge must include the right to be offensive, to affront people's most heartfelt beliefs, even to disparage that which they hold sacred. Otherwise it is an empty freedom.
Our decision to publish the 12 cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten (Jutland Post) at the centre of the escalating row between the Muslim world and the nations of the West is not one that the newspaper has taken lightly. However, in the clash of values at the centre of the dispute not to publish because of fear of disturbing the sensibilities of Muslims would be to give way in the face of bullying threats. That is what Muslims are seeking to have the Western democracies do with their threats of bombs and trade boycotts. There is no doubt that Muslims find the portrayal of the Prophet offensive. The Koran is clear that the slander and mockery of Islam and prayer crosses a sacred boundary, and warns that those who cross that boundary will be hurled into "crushing disaster". Mufti Abdul Barkatullah, a member of the British Muslim Council, calls it a no-go area at any cost, adding "the Prophet is held above everything in the universe, over one's own person, family, parents, the whole world. It is less offensive to condemn and vilify God". That is certainly true – for Muslims.
However Denmark, and the other countries where the cartoons have been reproduced, including in Britain by the BBC and in newspapers in France, Switzerland, Spain, Italy and Germany, are not Muslim countries. They are democratic, secular countries which are not ruled by religious dogma, whether it be Muslim or Christian. They have the same values as New Zealand, which includes the right to free speech in its Bill of Rights. There is an acceptance that people can write and say what they wish – except in tightly defined circumstances – even if others are offended by it, and that being shocked can be part of the price for being informed. The Muslim case is not helped by the hypocrisy when it comes to respecting the religious values of others. No doubt many fundamentalist Christian Americans find it deeply offensive for their country to be constantly labelled the Great Satan. And, as the German newspaper Die Welt pointed out when it published one of the cartoons, "when Syrian television showed drama documentaries in prime time depicting rabbis as cannibals, the imams were quiet". There have been earlier cultural confrontations between the West and a resurgent Islam, beginning with the death sentence pronounced in 1989 on author Salman Rushdie for The Satanic Verses, and including the murder in 2004 of Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh after he made a film dealing with violence against Islamic women. They are confrontations the West cannot afford to lose. The right to freedom of speech is a precious one that has to be defended. If there is a backlash in the form of boycotts then that could have a effect of New Zealands current buoyant economy as trade with the middle East in the form of providing halal meat and other agricultural goods is not insignificant.
If there is a backlash in the form of boycotts then that could have a effect of New Zealands current buoyant economy as trade with the Middle East in the form of providing halal meat and other agricultural goods is not insignificant.
posted by Anthony Burn at 11:34 am
<< Home